Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Minnesota Mike]

And we have our 5th different county leader. Warren takes the lead in Johnson county.

[redjohn]

If you'd told me a year ago that Biden and Klobuchar would be winning the same number of counties in Iowa, with neither reaching over 15% of the first vote, I'd have been shocked.

[atheist4thecause]

It's not being reported at all, but it looks like Andrew Yang modestly overperformed his polling. He has a little over 5% in the first alignment, which is pretty damn impressive.

It's a little impressive maybe, but he spent a lot of money on Iowa. IMO he should've just avoided Iowa and gone for New Hampshire from the start.

[Sestak]

It will be interesting to see the satellite caucus results regardless of who wins.

Fwiw all the satellites in state that I've seen reports of have gone very strongly for Sanders.

[brucejoel99]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

This. As great as actual support is, it always comes secondary to the "ultimate material outcome." The ultimate material outcome is what gives us a President Trump when Hillary wins on actual support. Is this right? Of course not, no. But it is what it is.

[redjohn]

Shaping up to be an important win for Pete, but I don't know his path forward besides winning NH.

Also, really good results for Bernie. He'll win the first vote (and maybe the second vote), so he can claim popular support, while Pete stays in and helps keep more establishment-supportive voters divided among several choices. Only better result for Bernie would've been Warren performing worse.

[European Lefty]

Iowa is cancelled.

Perhaps they should just run the other primaries and come back to this one if the delegates from Iowa are actually decisive. At this rate, it's going to take until the convention to get the results out anyway.....

[cvparty]

Buttigieg seems to be slowly chipping away Bernie's "Final Vote" margin. He could end up overtaking him.

pretty much all of des moines is in, so most of the outstanding polk vote is in suburban territory which should help buttigieg. but also bernie-leaning counties like woodbury, pottawattamie and story still have a decent number of oustanding votes (not to mention the satellite caucuses too)

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

This. As great as actual support is, it always comes secondary to the "ultimate material outcome." The ultimate material outcome is what gives us a President Trump when Hillary wins on actual support. Is this right? Of course not, no. But it is what it is.

Love how you're quoting my post when it's obvious you didn't read it.

[W]

I think it is fair to declare Pete the apparent winner of state delegates and Sanders the apparent winner of the popular vote at this point with near complete confidence if the data is correct. I'd consider this an effective tie but the media won't. The wrong data being entered is sketchy as hell though and imo there should be a recount, not out of some saltiness as a Sanders supporter as much as making sure nothing was missed in the apparent scramble to get these results out manually today. Iowa is about showmanship anyways I guess. Good game.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway, this is what the latest batch looks like for the final vote:

Pete 26.3%
Bernie 25.9%
Warren 20.9%
Biden 15.1%
Klob 9.9%

Seems like Pete actually won the final vote in this batch even though Bernie netted more SDEs. That reduces the discrepancy a bit, but it mostly seems to mean that the final vote lead is still up for grabs. If Pete actually wins that one, he can legitimately be called the winner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Still only 86.1% or 86.7% in at the 46 hour mark. Pete probably wins SDE. Bernie probably wins final alignment. Bernie has definitely won first alignment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

SDE new batch:
Bernie 27.0%
Pete 25.3%
Warren 19.0%
Biden 17.7%
Klob 9.5%

So yeah, what a weird reversal.

[jimrtex]

1520/1678 ordinary precincts counted = 90.3%

87 of the 245 outstanding results are satellites.

Top outstanding:

Polk 18
Scott 13
Woodbury 11
Story 19
Dubuque 9
Pottawatamie 5
Warren 5
Ringgold 4

Notably missing are Dallas complete, Linn 3, and Johnson 2.

Scott, Woodbury, and Dubuque suggest problems with stagecoaches from distant areas.

[Lourdes]

538 updated their model post-Iowa and Bernie is the frontrunner (although the chance of a contested convention has increased noticeably).

[Antonio the Sixth]

538 updated their model post-Iowa and Bernie is the frontrunner (although the chance of a contested convention has increased noticeably).

If I were then, I'd just discounted the "Iowa bounce" entirely, and just waited for the next batch of polls to come out. This whole clusterf**k has probably dulled whatever momentum Pete or Bernie might have gotten (and more importantly, softened the blow for Biden), so I doubt these numbers will stick. But we shall see.

[junior chįmp]

Numbers are probably wrong.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1225168116994445312?s=20

Reports coming in indicate that the driver responsible for delivering the final results is now stuck in the drive thru line at a Wendy's

"Hello, I'd like to report the next 10% of results."

"Sir, this is a Wendy's."

"Biden is number 4"

"What's that sir....you want a number 4?"

[Xing]

538 updated their model post-Iowa and Bernie is the frontrunner (although the chance of a contested convention has increased noticeably).

For once, 538 is being way too bullish on Sanders. It's one thing to say he's the single most likely candidate to win, but to say that he's now favored to win AR, NC, TN, and VA, and essentially tied in SC? Their model puts way too much weight on "momentum."

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, 538's models are volatile right now; there will certainly be a correction at some point.

538's Chances of...
Winning plurality of delegates: 47% Sanders (28% Biden)
Winning majority of delegates: 37% Sanders (27% No One)
Winning NH: 66% Sanders (20% Buttigieg)
Winning NV: 51% Sanders (22% Biden)
Winning SC: 41% Biden (40% Sanders)

[brucejoel99]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

This. As great as actual support is, it always comes secondary to the "ultimate material outcome." The ultimate material outcome is what gives us a President Trump when Hillary wins on actual support. Is this right? Of course not, no. But it is what it is.

Love how you're quoting my post when it's obvious you didn't read it.

Love how you still fail to understand that "actual support" is not the be-all & end-all of the presidential primary process.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

For once, 538 is being way too bullish on Sanders. It's one thing to say he's the single most likely candidate to win, but to say that he's now favored to win AR, NC, TN, and VA, and essentially tied in SC? Their model puts way too much weight on "momentum."

If Biden collapses and the moderate lane splits, why would Sanders not be favoured to do well in those states? Seems a reasonable assumption if you're predicting Sanders to finish 1st/2nd in the first three contests.

[Mr. Morden]

Can we move the 538 model discussion to the 538 model thread, and leave this one for Iowa results?

[Florida Man for Crime]

If I were then, I'd just discounted the "Iowa bounce" entirely, and just waited for the next batch of polls to come out. This whole clusterf**k has probably dulled whatever momentum Pete or Bernie might have gotten (and more importantly, softened the blow for Biden), so I doubt these numbers will stick. But we shall see.

At least part of the "Iowa Bounce" is not actually a bounce, however (not in the sense of being an actual change in support). It is partly just first contact of polls and likely voter models with reality. Polls tend to be off, but they tend to be off systematically to some degree in a correlated way. In particular, the fact that Biden greatly under-performed in Iowa relative to polls is suggestive that he may also do so in other states (though that is of course no guarantee).

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

This. As great as actual support is, it always comes secondary to the "ultimate material outcome." The ultimate material outcome is what gives us a President Trump when Hillary wins on actual support. Is this right? Of course not, no. But it is what it is.

Love how you're quoting my post when it's obvious you didn't read it.

Love how you still fail to understand that "actual support" is not the be-all & end-all of the presidential primary process.

Again, failed to actually read my post. But nice try.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I have no idea what's going on in Iowa anymore.

I am very confident that the 538 model is incredibly stupid, though.